Search

Previous research measuring differences in the care between men and women with myocardial infarction has focused on differences in procedure use and mortality. However, little is known about differences in processes and outcomes that are reported by patients, such as interpersonal processes of care and health status. Our goal was to measure differences in patient-reported measures for men and women who recently were hospitalized with myocardial infarction.We surveyed by mail patients with myocardial infarction discharged to home from one of 27 Cleveland area hospitals 3 months following discharge; 502 (64%) of 783 patients responded. The mean age of subjects was 65 years and 40% were women.Process measures included the quality of communication during the hospitalization and at time of discharge and reports of health education discussions during hospitalization. Outcome measures included physical and mental health component scores of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, change in work status, and days spent in bed because of ill health. We compared processes and outcomes in men and women using multivariate analyses that adjusted for age, other demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, severity of the myocardial infarction, and premorbid global health status.In multivariate analyses, women were as likely as men to report at least one problem with communication during the hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.56 to 1. 33) or at time of discharge (OR 1.24; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.89) and to report that they were given dietary advice before discharge (OR 0. 60; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.01), were told what to do if they developed chest pain (OR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.66 to 2.23), or, if they smoked cigarettes, given advice about how to stop smoking (OR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.26 to 1.58). However, 3 months after discharge, women reported worse physical health (P.05) and mental health (P.05), were more likely to report spending time in bed because of ill health (OR 1. 80; 95% CI, 1.06, 3.05), and were more likely to report working less than before their myocardial infarction (OR 4.02; 95% CI, 1.58 to 10. 20).In terms of processes of care measured with patient reports, women with myocardial infarction reported their quality of care to be similar to that of men. However, 3 months following myocardial infarction, women reported worse health status and were less likely to return to work than men.

Background: The impact of upper endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage treated in community practice is unknown. Thus we examined the effectiveness of endoscopy performed within 24 hours of admission (early endoscopy). Methods: Medical records of 909 consecutive hospitalized patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage who underwent endoscopy at 13 hospitals in a large metropolitan area were reviewed. We evaluated unadjusted and severity-adjusted associations of early endoscopy with recurrent bleeding or surgery to control hemorrhage, length of hospital stay, and associations of endoscopic therapy in patients with bleeding ulcers or varices. Results: Early endoscopy was performed in 64% of patients and compared with delayed endoscopy and was associated with clinically significant reductions in adjusted risk of recurrent bleeding or surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.70: 95% CI [0.44, 1.13]) and a 31% decrease in adjusted length of stay (95% CI: [24%, 37%]). In patients at high risk for recurrent bleeding, the use of early endoscopic therapy to control hemorrhage was associated with reductions in recurrent bleeding or surgery (OR 0.21: 95% CI [0.10, 0.47]) and length of stay (–31%: 95% CI [–44%, –14%). Conclusion: In this study of community-based practice, the routine use of endoscopy, and in selected cases endoscopic therapy, performed early in the clinical course of patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage was associated with reductions in length of stay and, possibly, the risk of recurrent bleeding and surgery. (Gastrointest Endosc 1999;49:145-52.)

The authors determined whether standardized hospital mortality rates varied for six common medical diagnoses.The retrospective cohort study included 89,851 patients aged 18 years and older discharged from 30 hospitals in a large metropolitan area in 1991 to 1993 with a principal diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, stroke, obstructive lung disease, or gastrointestinal hemorrhage. For each hospital, standardized mortality ratios (observed/predicted mortality) were determined using validated risk-adjustment models that were based on clinical data elements abstracted from patients' hospital records. Hospitals also were categorized into quintiles on the basis of standardized mortality ratios. Correlations between standardized mortality ratios and agreement between quintile rankings were determined for each pair of diagnoses.Correlations between hospital-standardized mortality ratios for individual diagnoses were generally weak. For the 15 possible pairs of diagnoses, Pearson coefficients ranged from -0.10 to 0.43; only six were 0.30 or greater. Agreement between hospital quintile rankings was also generally low, with weighted kappa values ranging from -0.12 to 0.42. Three of 15 kappa values were less than 0 (ie, agreement lower than chance), and only four exceeded 0.20, the threshold for "fair" agreement. Although simulated analyses found that random variation and relatively low hospital volumes accounted for some of the difference in standardized mortality ratios for diagnoses, a large proportion of the difference remained unexplained.Standardized hospital mortality rates varied for six diagnoses that likely are managed by similar practitioners. Although variability may be decreased by restricting analyses to hospitals with large volumes, the findings indicate that for many hospitals, diagnosis-specific mortality rates may be an inconsistent measure of hospital quality, even when data are aggregated for multiple years.

The goals of this study were 1) to determine the extent of substance abuse in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and 2) to assess the relevance of such abuse to subsequent response to treatment with clozapine.The subjects were 118 treatment-resistant patients with DSM-III-R diagnoses of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who underwent detailed demographic, clinical, and psychopathological evaluations before commencing treatment with clozapine. Lifetime and current histories of substance abuse were also systematically evaluated and characterized according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria and DSM-III-R. Response to clozapine treatment at 6 months was determined with measures of psychopathology and psychosocial function.An antecedent or current history of substance abuse was determined for 29 patients. Although predominantly male, the abusers did not differ from the nonabusers on other demographic features. The substance abusers actually showed less psychopathology (negative and disorganization symptoms) and better psychosocial functioning at baseline; however, both groups attained similar improvements on these measures after 6 months of clozapine therapy.A modest extent of previous or current substance abuse was observed among neuroleptic-resistant schizophrenic patients who subsequently received treatment with clozapine. This antecedent history of substance abuse did not appear to negatively influence subsequent response to clozapine treatment.

Differences in endoscopic practice in major teaching and community hospitals are not known.A total of 1031 consecutive patients discharged from 13 hospitals (4 major teaching, 9 others) in 1994 with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage were studied. Data obtained from chart abstraction included endoscopic findings and therapy and selected outcomes. Multivariable analyses adjusted for admission severity of illness and endoscopic findings.Rates of endoscopy were similar between patients admitted to major teaching and other hospitals, although procedures to control hemorrhage were used more often in major teaching hospitals (35% vs. 19%, p0.001). Use of endoscopic therapy was higher in major teaching hospitals for lesions in which therapy is recommended, as well as other lesions. Recurrent bleeding was also more common in major teaching hospitals (14.3% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.001), and the difference persisted in multivariable analysis (odds ratio 1.69: 95% CI [1.09 to 2.64], p = 0.02). Unadjusted and adjusted length of stay were somewhat shorter in major teaching hospitals.There was large variation in the use of endoscopic therapy, with higher rates observed in major teaching hospitals for lesions in which therapy is recommended, as well as other stigmata. Further studies are needed to better define the reasons for the practice variation and to assess the impact on other outcomes such as readmission and costs.

Article-at-a-Glance Background Cleveland Health Quality Choice is a regional initiative to assess hospital performance which was implemented in 1989. The project developed and validated CHOICE, a severity adjustment system that includes diagnosis-specific models for medical, surgical, and obstetrical patients which are based on clinical data abstracted from patients' medical records. Methodology Since 1992 Cleveland Health Quality Choice has disseminated semi-annual reports that profile hospital mortality rates, lengths of stay, and cesarean section rates using the CHOICE severity adjustment models. Hospitals receive tabular and graphical representations of hospital outcomes and electronic patient-level data files that can be used to further examine outcomes in clinical subgroups. Results Four case studies illustrate how outcomes data derived from the CHOICE models led to the development of successful hospital programs to decrease lengths of stay, cesarean section rates, and hospital mortality rates. Although each case study reflected a unique approach to process improvement, several common characteristics were observed: (1) establishment of interdisciplinary process improvement teams with senior physician and nursing leadership; (2) detailed review of the process of care to identify modifiable clinical practices likely to affect outcomes; (3) development of practice guidelines based on group consensus or published recommendations that were designed to affect modifiable practices; and (4) aggressive sharing of serial data with individual practitioners. Conclusions Although outcomes data can provide powerful insight on where to target quality improvement efforts, hospitals must identify influential and modifiable clinical practices. Such efforts are most likely to be successful if driven by interdisciplinary work groups, supported by senior clinicians and administrators, and based on locally accepted practice standards.

Objective The goal of this study was to determine whether clozapine is a cost-effective treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Method Data were collected on 96 treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia for 2 years before they entered a clozapine treatment study and for at least 2 years after they entered the study. Information about the cost of inpatient and outpatient treatment, housing costs, other costs, and family burden through direct interview or questionnaire of these patients and their families were available for 47 of the 96 patients. Data on lost income and Social Security disability insurance were also obtained. Outcome measures included psychopathology, quality of life, global functioning, work function, and rehospitalization. Results The cost of treatment was significantly decreased in the patients who continued clozapine treatment for at least 2 years. This was primarily due to a dramatic decrease in the frequency and cost of rehospitalization. Costs were nonsignificantly lower in patients who dropped out of treatment. The estimated total 2-year cost for the 59 patients who continued clozapine treatment, the 34 patients who dropped out, and the three who interrupted treatment decreased from $7,390,206 to $5,719,463, a savings of $8,702/year per patient. There was a decrease in total costs of $22,936/year for the 37 patients who continued clozapine treatment for whom cost data were available. There were no significant changes in lost income or Social Security disability insurance payments in either group. Clozapine produced a marked improvement in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total scores as well as positive negative symptom scores, Global Assessment Scale scores, Quality of Life Scale scores, work functioning, capacity for independent living, and rehospitalization rates. Conclusions Clozapine is a cost-effective treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenic patients. Cost savings result almost exclusively from the reduced cost of hospitalization.

Concentrations in plasma of clozapine and norclozapine, the major metabolite of clozapine, were measured in 59 treatment-resistant schizophrenic patients at a random time period during the course of treatment. A lower sum of the concentrations of clozapine and norclozapine or either alone predicted less improvement in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) Total and Positive symptoms in a multivariate analysis that controlled for baseline BPRS rating and dose. The mean doses of clozapine after 6 months of treatment and at the time of blood sampling were not significantly different in 30 responders and 29 nonresponders to clozapine, on the basis of the decrease in BPRS Total scores, whereas the concentrations in plasma in clozapine of norclozapine and the sum of their concentrations were significantly higher in responders. Clozapine and norclozapine concentrations in plasma correlated both with dose at the time of sampling and with dose at 6 months. A clozapine concentration of 370 ng/ml was the optimal cutoff for distinguishing responders from nonresponders. Clozapine and norclozapine concentrations did not differ in male smokers and nonsmokers.